Excerpts from Ng Oon-Ee's message of 2010-11-16 17:13:47 +0100: > On Tue, 2010-11-16 at 16:08 +0100, Philipp Überbacher wrote: > > My point in short: > > Arch is great as long most packages you need are binaries and only some > > are from source. > > If Arch requires you to build lots of packages from source it's the > > worst of both worlds. > > Have you seen the list of software getting moved? I've only seen one > person describe them collectively as 'many important' packages. Almost > none of which I've heard of before, of course.... > > This thread started with the assertion that 'many important' packages > are getting moved to the AUR. I believe this assertion to be false, as, > obviously, do the devs. Historically from reading [arch-dev-public] the > devs have been careful to continue maintaining packages none of them use > if its seen as crucial to a large majority of users. None of the > packages being moved fit these criteria. At all.
I see your point. I looked through the [extra] -> [] list yesterday or so and was a bit shocked at first until I saw that most of the packages I considered important would be maintained in community. However, what I tried to point out is what would happen if a binary -> source trend develops. One other thing: The lists are based on orphans. My impression was that it's common practice among developers to adopt -> update -> orphan. Based on this I wonder whether it's sensible to create lists of removal candidates based on orphans.